Tom King’s CRM Plus --
Ruminations on "cultural resource management," environmental impact assessment, and related esoteric topics, by a curmudgeon who seldom has anything good to say about anything.

Follow by Email

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

"Representing" an Indian Tribe: Part One

Text of a letter sent yesterday (6/24/14):

June 24, 2014

The Honorable John T.
Rymer

Inspector General

U.S. Department of
Defense

4800 Mark Center
DriveAlexandria, VA 22350-1500

Dear Mr. Rymer:

I write as a
taxpayer, voter, veteran, and owner of a small business to request that you
investigate what I believe to be at least negligent, and quite possibly intentional,
interference in my business activities by personnel of the Seattle District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including District Engineer Colonel Bruce A.
Estok.

Besides being
objectionable to me as a small businessperson, the District’s behavior concerns
me because it suggests a bias in favor of the applicant for a Corps Clean Water
Act (CWA) permit, calling into question
the District Engineer’s ability to make the public interest decision required under 33 CFR §§ 320-330.

By way of
background: I am an independent
contractor who consults, writes, and teaches about historic preservation and
environmental impact assessment. My
specialty is federal agency compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). Although I sometimes teach
and consult for DOD and other federal agencies, much of my work today is done
for Indian tribes. I assist tribes in
making sure that their traditional cultural places are recognized as eligible
for the planning consideration guaranteed by the NHPA for places that are
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); I also support
tribes in consulting with federal agencies and others under Section 106 of the
NHPA. I am the author of most
contemporary textbooks on such matters, and am generally recognized as expert
in dealing with them.

I am under contract
with the Lummi Nation, a federally recognized tribe in Washington State, to
assist that tribe in consultation with the Seattle District in connection with
the Corps’ potential issuance of a CWA permit for the proposed Gateway Pacific
coal terminal at Cherry Point near Bellingham, Washington. The project is currently the subject of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared for the Corps.

I have been critical
of the District’s handling of this case.
My strong impression is that the District’s approach has been and
continues to be disingenuous and prejudicial to Lummi interests, as well as to the integrity of a cultural landscape
called Xwe’chi’eXen by the
Lummi. I believe Xwe’chi’eXen is eligible for the NRHP.

On May 28, after
repeated efforts by the Lummi to prevail upon the Corps to pay attention to
their concerns, Lummi leadership met with Col. Estok and members of his
staff. In the course of their
conversation, Col. Estok informed the tribal leaders that I had contacted staff
of the EIS contractor, purporting to “represent” the Lummi nation.

Of course, no one can
“represent” a sovereign Indian tribe without the express permission and
direction of the tribal government.
Because unscrupulous whites have pretended to such representative status
over the last few centuries, with disastrous results, tribes are universally and
understandably very sensitive about such pretensions.

I have never
suggested to anyone that I “represent” the Lummi. What I in fact did, with the permission of
the Lummi leadership, was to telephone a representative of the EIS contractor –
a company for which I formerly provided training – to tell them that I was
working with the Lummi and to encourage them to address the Tribe’s actual
concerns with impacts on the Xwe’chi’eXen
landscape. The District and project
proponent have tended to ignore this landscape, instead focusing solely on an externally
defined archaeological site called 45WH1.
Naively perhaps, I thought the EIS contractor was in the business of
collecting data from a wide range of sources in order to assess objectively the
project’s environmental impact and inform the Corps’ public interest decision. This is apparently not the case; rather than
taking my call or responding to my voicemail message by contacting the Lummi,
the EIS contractor apparently reported the contact directly or indirectly to
Col. Estok.

Exactly how my voicemail
message came to be misinterpreted as a statement that I “represented” the Lummi
is not known to me. However, it would
clearly be in the interests of the Gateway Pacific project proponent to deprive
the Lummi of access to expert advice, and by casually reporting that I had said
I “represented” them, Col. Estok – whether negligently or intentionally –
advanced those interests.

Whatever Col. Estok’s
intention, his statement inappropriately and improperly raised questions in the
minds of the Lummi leadership about my actions.
They contacted the EIS contractor and ascertained the actual content of
my voicemail message (See attached letter of June 3), so it is my hope that
Col. Estok’s action will not have a serious impact on my relationship with the Tribe. However, Col. Estok has not
formally corrected the record, which continues to reflect his untrue
allegation. As you may be aware, such
allegations can take on lives of their own; if the false and defamatory rumor were
spread that I was in the habit of purporting to “represent” tribes with whom I
work, it would have a serious and deleterious impact on my business, and on my
ability to help tribes make sure that their cultural environments are properly
considered in environmental impact assessment.

I ask that you
investigate this matter, and if you find – as you will – that my account of the
matter is accurate, you exercise your authorities and responsibilities to ensure
that the Corps immediately issues a formal statement correcting the record.

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

Thanks for sharing this. My Tribe has had some issues with the Seattle District Corps over the last few years. Col. Estok is very good at talking while politely telling you to get over it, there is nothing he can do. They have no regard for TCP's at all, and they are not afraid to show it. -smm

Pages

Welcome to Tom King's CRM Plus

Welcome to my blog on topics related to "cultural resource management," whatever that may mean to you or me. I hope you find some interest in what you read here, that you'll add your own contributions, and that you'll encourage others to have a look. Thanks!

About Me

Thomas F. King holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of California Riverside (1976), and has worked since the 1960s in the evolving fields of research and management variously referred to as heritage, cultural resource management, and historic preservation. He is particularly known for his work with Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act, and with indigenous and other traditional cultural places.

King is the author and editor of ten textbooks and tradebooks (See http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-F.-King/e/B001IU2RWK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1353864454&sr=1-2-ent) as well as scores of journal articles, popular articles, and internet offerings on heritage topics.His career includes the conduct of archaeological research in California and the Micronesian islands, management of academy-based and private cultural resource consulting organizations, helping establish government historic preservation systems in the freely associated states of Micronesia, oversight of U.S. government project review for the federal government’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, service as a litigant and expert witness in heritage-related lawsuits, and extensive work as a consultant and educator in heritage-related topics. He is the co-author of the U.S. National Park Service's government-wide guidance on "traditional cultural properties" (TCPs; see http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf). He occasionally teaches short classes about historic preservation project review, traditional cultural places, and consultation with indigenous groups, and consults and writes as TFKing PhD LLC. Current major clients include several American Indian tribes and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.